No Title Provided
The end of the Bush Administration affords the opportunity to look back and recall some of the those minor controversies which flared up admist larger political concerns — the brush-fires off of the larger debates.  One item forgotten, when Richard Perle invited one Laurent Murawiec into a government policy board — one which had been refashioned in the Bush Administration to advocate the neo-conservative view in foreign policy — topple Saddam Hussein, put fear into Tehran, and on from there. Of course, Murawiec is no longer an advocate for Larouche, and we see that he has been referred to as, “a real-life ‘Beetlebaum’ of the legendary mythical horse-race, and a hand-me-down political carcass, currently in the possession of institutions of a peculiar odor.” But the imprints of his time with Larouche linger — as the slate article aptly asks “and where did he learn to write like this?” — with a power point presentation that ends with “Egypt the Prize” — surely neo-conservativsm on hyper-drive — that perpetual half suspect whimsical thought pops into my head that maybe he was a plant of the organization all along, or I’d suggest more likely — it’s a logical extension of where he came from — the old ally of the Neoconservative Movement from back in the day — ie: the Lyndon Larouche Movement — the advocates of a more aggressive stance against the Soviet Union annoyed by what they viewed as a lax appeasement of real-politik from figures such as Henry Kissinger — the stance that would help propel Ronald Reagan and a more aggressive stance against the Soviet Union “Evil Empire”, which as we can see here in this letter from Patrick Ruckert to the Seattle Times, the imprisonment of Larouche was all about the relinquishing of forces back to a policy agenda that would appease Moscow.
Politically, the rush was motivated by the fact that during the Reagan-Bush transition, the government wanted LaRouche out of the way while several policy actions were launched.The policy issues are the intent of the “establishment” to continue appeasement of Moscow; and to implement savage austerity against Third World nations and the U.S. population itself, to hold together a collapsing monetary and banking system.
LaRouche represents an alternative to such policies. That is why anti-Communist forces throughout the world see his jailing as a signal of capitulation to the Soviet empire. That is also why political forces in many Third World nations are publicly condemning the frame-up and jailing of this man.
Also, mind you, The nation will slide into the police-state methods of the Nazis and the Soviet empire. It all came to passed as predicted — this imprisonment brought upon a strengthening of the power of the Soviet Union to run roughside all over its sphere of Influence. Right?
Because we’re always very concerned with Moscow’s treatment of its neighbors.
I think a lexus-nexis search (or some more scattershot variations I can partake of) for news conferences with “Executive Intelligence Review” with any variation of the phrase “note of puzzlement” would draw up a good number of “notes of puzzlement” — though, in this case the phrase “as I’m sure the Executive Intelligence group would be the first to point out” suggests the speaker preceeding him knew exactly who he was talking to. This Brookings Institute press junket happened in August of 2008. At the time the cult was pretty much dedicating all of its attention to supporting Putin in his spill-over into Georgia. It was the daily briefing cause of the day, and the battle to stop the out-break of WW3 (here started by those dastardly neo-cons) was the reason given for sticking the information that Larouche appeared on a Russian tv show in the wikipedia article. This all changed during the Great Crisis which had Treasury Secretary run to Congress for a massive bail-out, and we could pivot right back to the bread and butter Bank Collapse Panic. Which, naturally, Larouche has been well ahead of — why, he saw it coming back in 1979 and had Carter have to hear his name — bold seeing as Carter was at the time plotting with Queen Elizabeth and others to assassinate him.Â
 To summarize: a one time supporter of the neo-con movement and the biggest War Mongerers out there despite what they will tell you annoy someone whose name is not Sara and continue on. Also for some reason Jeremiah Duggan is on an anti-semites’ list of Influential Jews who are destroying British Society.  Well, let’s hope he proves to be influential, I suppose.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
For the record, Laurent Murawiec, a brilliant scholar, is not a LaRouche plant. He has been out of the LaRouche movement for about two decades and his current world view, as deciphered from his published writings, is extremely at odds with LaRouche’s. I furthermore don’t think there was anything so bad about his 2002 Power Point. Can anyone deny that Egypt is the central, most populous and best armed country in the Arab world–and that for it to fall to Islamic fundamentalists would be a decisive victory for the latter? Perhaps he should have said “Egypt is the goal” rather than “Egypt is the prize” but that’s just cosmetics. And what’s wrong with criticizing harshly the Saudis, who’ve done nothing but stab the U.S. in the back for years, and who continue to fund Islamic extremism around the world (most recently in Bosnia), with the supine acquiescence of both Republicans and Democrats?
January 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I tend to agree with Dennis King. Having known Laurent for years, I can say emphatically that he is not a LaRouche plant now, and that even when he was in the LaRouche movement, 20 years ago, he was extremely disaffected–in fact, he and his then-wife were among the first people in the European organization to go after the LaRouche org leadership there for their anti-Semitism.
I talked at length to Laurent’s then-wife before they made that intervention, when she was visting the U.S. around 1987, and they were definitely on their way out at that time.
Also–although LaRouche courted conservatives and rightwingers off and on, between bouts of courting the Catholic Church, the Nation of Islam, and radical terrorist Muslim factions, he was never ever close to the “neo-conservatives.” He hated them.
He also lumped into the “neo-con” grouping a whole bunch of paleo-conservatives he didn’t like.
Naturally, he had a soft spot for Pat Buchanan. He hated the Bushes, father and son, hated Cheney, and didn’t scruple to mention over and over that many neo-cons were Jews (see the Children of Satan pamphlets).
Of all the former LaRoucheists running around, there are only a few that I consider likely to be LaRouche plants, one of them being, of course, the impossible Webster Tarpley.
As to the leadership of the German organization, who left en masse in the fall of 2006, I don’t really know. They embrace a lot of LaRouche-style social democratic Euro-left babble, but I think a number of them are decent people who are not LaRouche plants. There are a few I’m not so sure about.
Tarpley’s ex-wife, Muriel Mirak Weissbach, who remains on the Executive Committee of the Euro LaRouche org, is extremely problematic, especially her outright support for Islamic terrorism.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
For the record, I never said that Laurent was a Larouche plant (seriously at least), and would consider such a thing an absurd conspiracy theory only a few steps shy of absurdity Larouche would compose. Beyond that, I think I can let some things set or lie.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
fair enough.